From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail02.groups.io (mail02.groups.io [66.175.222.108]) by spool.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B85E7803CF for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 23:48:06 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=ZZ3TYl1blufq/lRNBMXrfQT+BOoo7KKUEbhcUiECmsI=; c=relaxed/simple; d=groups.io; h=MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject:To:Cc:Precedence:List-Subscribe:List-Help:Sender:List-Id:Mailing-List:Delivered-To:Reply-To:List-Unsubscribe-Post:List-Unsubscribe:Content-Type; s=20140610; t=1707954485; v=1; b=nbPGs8fG20Ev9w5vB9tybbptbJcSWgENHNZx7gEf7NVPeFSGT1f/fiG63dUseXJvPKUs7GfI Al4v0eSPeU0WsV/+S1k4UJbS+hJ3Kc7vTmWZUbZAkzHuZ3T5D3agGYNtNGGCCQ/IQzdFFriNP8f ahywrKcB5Th1jPjBhn+H8hAI= X-Received: by 127.0.0.2 with SMTP id 6Ma8YY7687511xtBsWl7rC9P; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 15:48:05 -0800 X-Received: from sin.source.kernel.org (sin.source.kernel.org [145.40.73.55]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.2608.1707954484004188540 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 15:48:04 -0800 X-Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by sin.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09B19CE246B for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 23:48:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4A168C433F1 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 23:48:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Received: by mail-lf1-f51.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-511976c126dso365227e87.1 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 15:48:00 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: JnkRpUnBfLsZQV4yaEk5NpTex7686176AA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHFed5pfn9zx0ZmvsuUSSOu7EgnE6JPxuXMSZtb4ab56enJ2IvRn1kBXtQtA0PNR/q7YSThO8l0tjHXkUkaXTI= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:e98:b0:511:ac21:57db with SMTP id bi24-20020a0565120e9800b00511ac2157dbmr224593lfb.0.1707954478394; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 15:47:58 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20240214011751.2529-1-michael.d.kinney@intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: "Ard Biesheuvel" Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 00:47:46 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [Patch 1/1] BaseTools/Scripts/PatchCheck: Error if commit modifies multiple packages To: devel@edk2.groups.io, michael.d.kinney@intel.com Cc: Leif Lindholm , Rebecca Cran , Liming Gao , "Feng, Bob C" , "Chen, Christine" , Michael Kubacki Precedence: Bulk List-Subscribe: List-Help: Sender: devel@edk2.groups.io List-Id: Mailing-List: list devel@edk2.groups.io; contact devel+owner@edk2.groups.io Reply-To: devel@edk2.groups.io,ardb@kernel.org List-Unsubscribe-Post: List-Unsubscribe=One-Click List-Unsubscribe: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-GND-Status: LEGIT Authentication-Results: spool.mail.gandi.net; dkim=pass header.d=groups.io header.s=20140610 header.b=nbPGs8fG; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), DKIM not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=kernel.org (policy=none); spf=pass (spool.mail.gandi.net: domain of bounce@groups.io designates 66.175.222.108 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bounce@groups.io On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 at 00:27, Michael D Kinney wrote: > > Hi Ard, > > Using commit message does provide granularity down to a single commit, > which may be better than PR label which applies across all commits > in a series. > > However, a flag in the commit message can be set by the author who may > not be a maintainer and maintainers would then need to review commit > messages for incorrect use of those flags. > > Only maintainers/admins can set labels, so from a permission management > perspective the PR label has an advantage. > > Additional comments below. There are ways to support bisect and meet > the proposed checks. The suggestion uses techniques that Laszlo helped > me with in the past when working on issues like there. I have seen more > complex scenarios than the examples listed below, and have been able to > figure out a path through. > > I would agree it is extra work to think about these when working on > the code changes and extra work to reformulate the patches when these > conditions are encountered. > > I just want to be clear on the objections. It is not about if the patches > can be organized to follow this proposal. The objection is about the > extra work required to reformulate patches. > No. The objection is fundamentally about having to appease the CI even if doing so is unreasonable. I don't mind a bit of extra work. I do mind having to make code changes that make the code worse just to tick a CI box. (This is why I disabled uncrustify for the ARM packages: many header files which were perfectly legible before were converted into a jumble of alphabet soup because uncrustify removed all of the indentation) It is about having the discretion to deviate from the rules in the odd case where the cure is worse than the disease. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#115473): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/115473 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/104345509/7686176 Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [rebecca@openfw.io] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-